California High Speed Rail Thread

[Busy Bee]

I really don't give a shit what the naysayers say. I've gotten to a point in my life where it no longer makes me sad that they are so miserable, in fact I kind of enjoy the thought of it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I really don't give a shit what the naysayers say. I've gotten to a point in my life where it no longer makes me sad that they are so miserable, in fact I kind of enjoy the thought of it.

That's about the same attitude King George III took when he decided to tax tea shipped to America.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I really don't give a shit what the naysayers say. I've gotten to a point in my life where it no longer makes me sad that they are so miserable, in fact I kind of enjoy the thought of it.

Soooo....you will blindly support this?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

That's about the same attitude King George III took when he decided to tax tea shipped to America.

Give me a break, what a lame comparison. The doubters and sabotagers of this project are on the wrong side of history.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Soooo....you will blindly support this?

You'd have to be blind to not see the benefits of this project. Because of politics and lack of coherent consensus, is it being developed the most ideal way ever? No, of course not. But the project is still in it's infancy and some toxic skeptics out there want to smother this thing in the crib, and that could quite possibly be the most foolish transportation decision ever made in the state's history. Thirty years from now there are not going to be naysayers of this project. People will think it absurd that anyone ever thought it was a bad idea and thankful for the hopeful vision that was required to plan for the future at the time.

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You'd have to be blind to not see the benefits of this project. Because of politics and lack of coherent consensus, is it being developed the most ideal way ever? No, of course not. But the project is still in it's infancy and some toxic skeptics out there want to smother this thing in the crib, and that could quite possibly be the most foolish transportation decision ever made in the state's history. Thirty years from now there are not going to be naysayers of this project. People will think it absurd that anyone ever thought it was a bad idea and thankful for the hopeful vision that was required to plan for the future at the time.

Exactly, the doubters have realised with the orange puff in power they have the chance to stop it. But once the line is built to at least one major market then the numbers will push it too completion even if it takes a decade longer.

Get it to San Jose and a half hourly all station service will stimulate a lot of travel. The key being Fresno to San Jose and onwards to San Fransciso. In the short term a few Bi Mode trains could be bought for an hourly Sacremento - Bakersfield service. A working serivce with a few million users, regular commuters between all those forgottin inland cities will build a big state wide coalition. Inevatably this "Get it to LA" group would at least finish off the core route. After the next cheapest extension would be to get it Sacremento properly.

The only danger is if San Diego gets forgeotten or it could just an Orange county link and San Bernadino and Riverside get forgotten.

Once the LA link is in then, a line to LAs Vagas is almost inevatible.

[Eightball]

^^^yep

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by electricron

That's about the same attitude King George III took when he decided to tax tea shipped to America.

And if he was successful we'd be a commonwealth like Canada or Australia instead of the shithole that we are.

#fuckgeorgewashington

[jd3189]

^^^ Well, if we're considering California, you would probably be a part of Mexico.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You'd have to be blind to not see the benefits of this project. Because of politics and lack of coherent consensus, is it being developed the most ideal way ever? No, of course not. But the project is still in it's infancy and some toxic skeptics out there want to smother this thing in the crib, and that could quite possibly be the most foolish transportation decision ever made in the state's history. Thirty years from now there are not going to be naysayers of this project. People will think it absurd that anyone ever thought it was a bad idea and thankful for the hopeful vision that was required to plan for the future at the time.

If a state spent 1 million per resident in welfare a month, I could see the huge benefits of that, you would be blind not to. However, that would come at a huge cost and eventually hurt the state(and its people) in the end. Just because something has a potential for a large benefit doesn't mean its worth it.

And in retrospect, you may be correct. Most transportation projects are like that. If we spent 50 billion in subway construction in NYC today, in 100 years that will look like a bargain. But, if we could have spent 25 billion rather than 100 billion, we will be better off today and tomorrow.

[Busy Bee]

So simply put you think it should cost less and you think the sixth largest economy in the world cannot afford it. OK, you are entitled to that opinion, but I and many believe it is an investment not at all wildly outside the range of what a system like this SHOULD cost and in a state that has plenty ability to pay for it. California is rich, stop acting like this is Uzbekistan, which by the way has built high speed rail.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

So simply put you think it should cost less and you think the sixth largest economy in the world cannot afford it. OK, you are entitled to that opinion, but I and many believe it is an investment not at all wildly outside the range of what a system like this SHOULD cost and in a state that has plenty ability to pay for it. California is rich, stop acting like this is Uzbekistan, which by the way has built high speed rail.

And how much did Uzbekistans line cost?

And 'affording' something is just a juvenile thing to say. Of course you can 'afford' it, but is it the best place to put your money?

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

And how much did Uzbekistans line cost?

And 'affording' something is just a juvenile thing to say. Of course you can 'afford' it, but is it the best place to put your money?

Yes, absolutely.

But I'm sure in your fantasy world the French, Germans, and Japanese are just kicking themselves for wasting so much money on trains. They could've used that money to give tax breaks to billionaires instead!

[FresnoHobbit]

I think rehashing the debate about whether it is wise to build the HSR is a waste of time. That decision was already made.
Those who are opposed to spending that much money should focus on where the money is wasted and point out how things could be done better - and don't for a second think that a hyper-loop would be cheaper - it would cost multiple times more by the mile.
I lean towards supporting the HSR - we can't keep on building more freeways and larger airports for California's growing population -just imagine how much the I-5 would cost if we had to build it today. But I am critical of the way the HSR is progressing and don't believe in their timeline when they are going to build a 13 mile tunnel to San Jose and are not even close to digging yet.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Yes, absolutely.

But I'm sure in your fantasy world the French, Germans, and Japanese are just kicking themselves for wasting so much money on trains. They could've used that money to give tax breaks to billionaires instead!

And it makes perfect sense when you think the culture of LA will ever come close to that of the Japanese or French regarding public transport and dense developments not catering to the car.

I do think like 70 billion would be nice to spend on public transport in SF/SAC/LA/SD and some help with the Central Valley cities.

Its not a debate on:

SUPER SWEET HSR or BILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS(and really, how simple is that retort?)

It could be this debate:

Spend 70 billion on a line that is already serviced by air.
Or...
Spend 70 billion dollars locally which will help jump-start a lot of projects or buy more buses and help literally 100s of thousands more people than this rail line. And chances are you will help more low and middle-income people. This HSR line will be mostly upper middle class to wealthy.

So no, your argument is weak. Ive been saying this whole time this is a project paid by everyone and wont be used by everyone, mainly including poorer Californians. Which obviously you think tax breaks for the rich is a terrible thing, so surely you must want any project THIS large to help the poor the most, right?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by FresnoHobbit

I think rehashing the debate about whether it is wise to build the HSR is a waste of time. That decision was already made.
Those who are opposed to spending that much money should focus on where the money is wasted and point out how things could be done better - and don't for a second think that a hyper-loop would be cheaper - it would cost multiple times more by the mile.
I lean towards supporting the HSR - we can't keep on building more freeways and larger airports for California's growing population -just imagine how much the I-5 would cost if we had to build it today. But I am critical of the way the HSR is progressing and don't believe in their timeline when they are going to build a 13 mile tunnel to San Jose and are not even close to digging yet.

All fair points, honestly...

[Korey]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

It could be this debate:

Spend 70 billion on a line that is already serviced by air.
Or...
Spend 70 billion dollars locally which will help jump-start a lot of projects or buy more buses and help literally 100s of thousands more people than this rail line. And chances are you will help more low and middle-income people. This HSR line will be mostly upper middle class to wealthy.

Let's do both

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

And it makes perfect sense when you think the culture of LA will ever come close to that of the Japanese or French regarding public transport and dense developments not catering to the car.

I do think like 70 billion would be nice to spend on public transport in SF/SAC/LA/SD and some help with the Central Valley cities.

Its not a debate on:

SUPER SWEET HSR or BILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS(and really, how simple is that retort?)

It could be this debate:

Spend 70 billion on a line that is already serviced by air.
Or...
Spend 70 billion dollars locally which will help jump-start a lot of projects or buy more buses and help literally 100s of thousands more people than this rail line. And chances are you will help more low and middle-income people. This HSR line will be mostly upper middle class to wealthy.

So no, your argument is weak. Ive been saying this whole time this is a project paid by everyone and wont be used by everyone, mainly including poorer Californians. Which obviously you think tax breaks for the rich is a terrible thing, so surely you must want any project THIS large to help the poor the most, right?

Your entire argument is based on the ridiculous premise that you know what the train's ridership demographics will be a decade from it's opening.

[Sun Belt]

Calif. is one recession away from a budget disaster. Governor Brown has been warning about this. What will get cut first, a 100 billion dollar train or public pensions? I'm guessing the train will get scaled back.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Your entire argument is based on the ridiculous premise that you know what the train's ridership demographics will be a decade from it's opening.

Or, its based on projected ticket prices and reality of poorer people; they don't travel much.